Opinion
July 12, 1991
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the trial court erred by refusing to strike the testimony of a police investigator who destroyed Rosario material. Police Investigator Pieklik interviewed defendant shortly after his arrest, made notes of the interview and prepared a written report based, in part, upon those notes. Thereafter, the investigator destroyed his notes.
Clearly, "a right sense of justice" entitles a defendant to inspect the prior statements of a prosecution witness relating to the subject matter of that witness's testimony prior to cross-examination (People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 289, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, cert denied 368 U.S. 866, rearg denied 14 N.Y.2d 876, 15 N.Y.2d 765; see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 62; People v Quinones, 139 A.D.2d 404, 406, affd 73 N.Y.2d 988), and the notes and reports of a police officer have been specifically included as Rosario material since 1965 (see, People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 90-91). Where Rosario material has been lost or destroyed by reason of the People's failure "to exercise care to preserve it and defendant is prejudiced by their mistake, the court must impose an appropriate sanction" (People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940). We conclude, however, that the investigator's failure to preserve the notes did not, under the circumstances of this case, cause any prejudice to defendant. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose any sanction (cf., People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955).
Defendant's conviction of burglary in the first degree and burglary in the second degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Further, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, supra). Finally, the sentence imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion.